Skip to main content

About this Show

Tonight From Washington

News/Business. News.




San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel 100 (651 MHz)






Us 56, America 39, Washington 36, Mr. Levin 25, Michigan 23, Mr. Ryan 17, Boehner 17, Mr. Van Hollen 16, United States 16, John Boehner 12, Iowa 11, D.c. 10, New York 10, Reid 10, Texas 9, California 9, Maryland 8, Harry Reid 8, Wisconsin 7, Iraq 6,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    Tonight From Washington    News/Business. News.  

    July 28, 2011
    8:00 - 11:00pm EDT  

every month for military operations in afghanistan alone to prop up a corrupt and incompetent karzai government. how about ending wasteful subsidies to big agriculture companies? how about asking billionaire hedge fund managers to pay the same tax rates as their secretaries? the truth is that the best way to deal with our long-term fiscal situation is to grow our economy. that means creating jobs and putting people back to work. the last election i thought was about jobs. we haven't talked about jobs at all since the new republican majority became -- came to power. that means investing in things like education and infrastructure and green technology and medical research. that's the kind of economic future the american people deserve. the boehner default plan would take us exactly in the wrong direction and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california has 5 1/2 minutes remaining.
the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, as i listen to my friend from the other side of the aisle, mr. mcgovern, talk about what has caused the problem that we're in right now, he failed to mention the failed stimulus bill, he failed to mention the failed health care bill, both horribly expensive. but i think it's important for us to look at the facts on one of the items that he mentioned. they continue, mr. speaker, to engage in this class warfare, us versus them, the multibillionaires, the -- all this sort of stuff, over and over and over again. we happen to recognize that we're all in this together and there should be shared sacrifice. i think that's why it's important for us to look at the facts. let's look at the facts here. as we continue to hear people decry the so-called bush tax cuts, which as we all know are no longer bush tax cuts, they are the bush-obama tax cuts, they became that last december when president obama supported the extension of them, let's look at what happened with the 2003 growth-oriented tax cuts.
in 2003, mr. speaker, the federal government had $1,782 ,000,000 in revenues. that was in 2003 before the growth-oriented tax cuts went into effect. mr. speaker, in 2007 the federal government had a 44% increase in the flow of revenues to the federal treasury by virtue of those 2003 tax cuts. they went from $1,782 ,000,000,000 to $2,567,000,000,000. that's a $785 billion increase in the flow of revenues to the federal treasury after the now bush-obama tax cuts were put into place. so this mularkey about the notion of those who are successful are not paying their fair share of taxes is absolutely preposterous.
i want to take the time that i have remaining to shatter a few myths that are out there. first of all, we know right now that we're facing a crisis. both democrat and republican alike in these remarks have made it clear that we're facing a crisis. i have yet to hear anyone, i think maybe the minority whip mentioned the reid plan, all anyone's done on the other side of the aisle is malign the boehner plan. and mischaracterize it, quite frankly, mr. speaker. but i think it's important to look at what it is that we face. we know that the president of the united states said that if we don't increase the debt ceiling by august 2, on august 3 he does not know whether or not the social security checks will actually go out. well, mr. speaker, we all want to make sure that the social security checks go out. this is going to be our one opportunity to vote for a measure that will ensure that we increase the debt ceiling, so that those checks will go out, and for the first time in the 75 times that the debt ceiling has been increased since 1962 we're going to get to the root cause
of the problem. in the past four years we've had an 82% increase, an 82% increase in nondefense discretionary spending. and guess what? the american people last november said, that has to come to an end. and you know what? it's going to come to an end when we pass this measure. i also want to say that we know that the threat of default is out there and if we don't take actions we know that our credit rating will be downgraded. we know that that will happen. all of the rating agencies have predicted that. they've also said that simply increasing the debt ceiling is not adequate, we need to make sure that we get ourselves on a path that reduces the debt and reduces our deficits. well, mr. speaker, what we need to do is we need to recognize also that those agencies have said, these proposals are that path. there was a report that s&p 500 had said that we in fact, if we
didn't have $4 trillion in cuts which i frankly wish we could, but in light of the fact that this is a bipartisan effort we're not going to get that high, but they said that if we didn't have $4 trillion in reductions that we would still threaten the credit rating. well, yesterday, the president of standard & poor's testified before the financial services committee and said, well, we must get on a path toward reducing the deficit and debt, it was inaccurate. it was inaccurate to say that it had to be a $4 trillion level and that's why, as my friends have been quoting these different sources i was trying to get them on record to say who in fact is saying this. . we have to increase the debt ceiling and get ourselves on a path that will reduce the annual deficits and the gnat debt. the plan before us is far from perfect. speaker boehner doesn't like it, i don't like it, but the rest of us recognize that we have a
democratic president and a democratic united states senate. if we are going to increase the debt and are going for the first time, first time ever ever change the course on the issue of debt ceiling increases by cutting spending, we have to pass this measure. it grew from this bipartisan compromise last weekend. harry reid no longer supports it. i haven't heard anyone on the other side say they supported it, but it was a bipartisan compromise. let's support this measure, mr. speaker. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. now in order under the rule to have 30 minutes of debate controlled by the committee on ways and means. 15 minutes will be controlled by the chairman of the committee, mr. camp of michigan and 15 minutes controlled by mr. levin from michigan. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield myself such time as i may consume.
the chair: the gentleman is recognized. i mr. camp: i support the act which cuts out-of-control spending and responsible and necessary plan to avoid a default on our nation's debt. as we know under president obama, we are experiencing our third straight year of deficits in excess of $1 trillion. in four years, president obama's actions and projected budgets will add more than twice to our debt than was added during the previous eight years. all told, the debt will double under president obama's watch and reach a staggering $26 billion by 2021. double the debt in half the time when compared with the previous administration. congress must act to cut spending and get our debt under control and that's what the
legislation before us does. first, the bill cuts more than $900 billion in federal spending and meets the expectations of the american people that we cut spending more than we increase the debt limit. second, the bill guarantees the house and senate will vote on a balanced budget amendment. more than half of the states have a balanced budget requirement and it's time washington's books are balanced as well. third, the bill demands reforms to the way washington works by setting up a joint house and senate committee to find at least $1.6 trillion in additional savings. its work product would enjoy expedited consideration in the house and senate and could not be filibustered. despite what you have heard from the critics of this approach, that this is the most common way the debt limit has increased for a short duration and tied to spending reforms and history is pretty clear on this point. over the last 25 years, congress and the president have acted 31
times to increase the debt limit. 22 of those 31 times were for less than a year. only three of those, 31 increases lasted longer than two years. these debt limit increases are tied to spending reforms and preceded by short-term increases. three examples, 1987, three short-term debt limit increases prior to a longer term increase that included deficit targets and automatic sequestration provisions. 18990, there were six short-term increases before long-term increases. and in 1996, there were two very short-term increases to ensure full funding of social security and other federal funds before a longer term increase included in the contract of america advancement act. what we are doing today is what has happened before. i would also point out that the increase in the debt limit and
the binding process to achieve spending reform in washington is exactly what the financial markets need and expect from us. time is short and this bill may be our last, best chance to prevent a default. if we fail to act and the government defaults on its debt, the financial and economic shock waves that will ripple across this country are unpredictable and unimaginable. i want to say a few words about what is not in this bill and that is tax increases. while the president insists that tax increases be part of any debt limit, he failed to convince his own party. in december of last year when democrats controlled both the house and the senate, congress refused to raise taxes and now even senator reid's own plan to increase the debt limit which the president has thrown his support behind, does not include tax increases. given the need to get our fiscal house in order for the future,
we must pass the budget control act and i urge a yes vote on this bill and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: as i have been listening to this debate, i think it's critical that the house needs some truth in speaking. this bill is not bipartisan. the vote will soon show that. this bill is not a compromise. it is not a compromise. it does not seek bipartisan common ground. indeed, it is orchestrated onlt to find enough common ground among house republican
partisans. this bill does not reflect compromise. it would compromise indeed medicare and social security. it forces massive cuts consistent with the ideological republican budget that was unanimously opposed by democrats. this bill does not promote certainty for our nation's economy. instead, it brings more un certainty for families facing major financial decisions, for businesses deciding whether to invest or hire, for markets unsure when the next shoe might drop. this bill is not balanced. instead, it embraces the republicans' one mantra just expressed by the chairman of our committee. no end to unjustified tax loopholes or tax breaks for the
very wealthiest even as so many middle class families have been losing ground. in a few words, our nation's economy and jobs are too much to risk on a bill that is a bridge to no where between our two houses. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. herger. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. herger, 90 seconds. mr. herger: we must act now to enact critical spending reforms. while the white house has refused to offer a plan, the budget control act would accomplish this goal. will it solve all of our economic problems? no. but instead of discussing how much more washington will spend,
we're now talking about reducing our spending and how to live within our means, just like all americans must do. for example, budget control act would cut nearly $1 trillion in spending over the next 10 years, establish firm spending caps and require the senate to vote on a balanced budget amendment. i urge the senate and the president to stop playing politics and support this bill. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to another member of our committee, mr. neal of massachusetts. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts, two minutes. mr. neal: thank you, mr. levin for yielding. this argument today is not about new spending.
the argument today is paying our bills. this is the credit card that has come due for the irresponsibility that we witnessed in this chamber and across this congress for eight years of the bush administration. two wars and $2.3 trillion worth of tax cuts, a prescription d medicare drug bill that came due . the president's chief economic adviser at the time said it was going to cost $300 billion in iraq. they fired him. dick cheney said $60 billion in iraq and in and out in six to eight months. 10 years later, we are in iraq. we have created 2.2 million new veterans. they are going to need our care for years to come in our health centers, for the v.a. it's going to be expensive. paul wolfowitz, in and out of iraq in a few months, a few
billion dollars. the bill, our friends, has come due. we cannot send a message to markets anywhere that the full faith and credit of the united states of america is at risk. in the aftermath of world war ii, when finances were strained as never before, president truman had the vision not only pay off the debt of world war ii, but to embrace the marshall plan, one of the greatest achievements in history. think of what mr. lincoln might have said during the midst of a civil war, america's worst moment, that america would forfeit expenditures as the bill has come due. mr. jefferson and mr. hamilton met in new york with one of the most fateful decisions in american history, to accept the debt of the states, which moved us away from the articles of the confederation to a constitutional system.
and now, at this moment, a political party in our history that always embraced fiscal responsibility, the bill has come due and it's our obligation to pay it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee and chairman of the joint economic committee, the gentleman from texas, mr. brady. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: the bill has come due. since world war ii, because congress held the puffers strings we ran the numbers. democrats have ron up 90% of the debt that is held by the public. 90% of the debt that we owe to foreign countries, and foreign countries you and me have been run up by one side of the aisle. wouldn't it be great if the democrats joined us, but they won't. republicans will take responsibility for their mess. we are going to make sure this
country pays its bills, but we are going to make sure we start cutting up the credit cards and change the financial behavior of this country and actually give our kids and grandkids a future that they can count on, that they can afford, a country that is much stronger than the one we are facing today if we don't address this health problem. you can't cut soon enough or deep enough for me. but the budget control act starts us on the right step. it cuts $2.7 trillion in two steps. we cut more than we allow to be borrowed and make sure there are no tax increases on our children, on our small businesses, on your families. we make sure there is finally a real straight up and down vote on the constitutional amendment to balance washington's budget. we get more than half of the spending cuts in the republican budget proposed by our budget chairman, paul ryan. more than half of those cuts are put in place because of this
bill. it doesn't solve the problems of america. but i tell you what, if you vote this bill down, all we have done is write a blank check to the president. we have given everyone a free ride in washington until next election and they will not be held accountable. no one in congress, for getting our financial house in order. this bill is the first step and right step and where we need to move forward. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to mr. doggett of texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas two minutes. mr. doggett: my neighbors in texas are saying, work together to resolve this crisis without jeopardizing medicare and social security. adopt a balanced approach that balances the budget by closing some tax loopholes at the same time we cut spending.
but agreing has not been possible so far when so many of our house colleagues pride themselves in big disagreeable. instead of protecting the full faith and credit of these united states in the same manner as our republican colleagues voted to do seven times, proposing it with george bush, today's bill really represents little more than a ransome note who are using this critical issue to hold our country hostage. . they demand we jeopardize the security for the very young with educational opportunities and for the old with social security and medicare. their ransom demands do not share the sacrifice but they sure do spread the pain. to the young, to the old, to those who are trying to climb up the economic ladder or just not slide backwards. they talk about tightening the belt.
the only belt they're really tightening is right around the neck of those hostages that they've taken. i believe now is the time to stand firm for those families and to affirm that america will always pay our bills by rejecting this bill and then moving forward with more reasonable legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i yield one minute to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from louisiana, dr. boustany. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: thank you, mr. speaker. we've heard a lot of talk about the past and how we got here. the american people get it. we have debt. serious debt. a threat to our national security and a threat to our economic prosperity. and a default, putting the full faith and credit of the united states on the line, would make that worse. this house has passed cut, cap and balance. we stood up to our responsibility and passed a bill. now we've got a second bill because it didn't get through
the senate. we have a second bill brought forward consist went our principles. we're going to cut more than we're going to borrow. we're going to cap spending with real statutory caps and we're going to ensure that there will be a vote on a balanced budget amendment in both houses. that's what the american people want. they're demanding it. this is a solid first step to getting that debt under control. we need to move forward now. let me be clear, this house must act now. the time is running out. the senate must act on this bill and the president must sign it. let's uphold our responsibility. we have a responsibility to the american people. let's uphold our responsibility and do what's right for the country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: could i inquire of our time, please? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has 9 1/2 minutes and mr. camp has seven. mr. levin: it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, mr. blumenauer of oregon. the speaker pro tempore: for? for how long?
mr. levin: two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. i didn't hear. mr. blumenauer: mr. speaker, this proposal that is brought for us today can be characterized by three words. reckless, hypocritical and abusive. it's reckless because for the first time in history we're having people play an elaborate game of fiscal checken -- chicken, threatening the full faith and credit of the united states for their own ideological agenda. 102 times we have increased the debt limit since 1917, seven times for george bush, even though he was fighting unfunded wars and proposing massive tax cuts. people are already paying the price right now as we're starting to see stock markets slide, premiums are increased for ensuring our debt and there's doubt about where we're going forward. it is hypocritical because the republicans have refused to actually back up some of the
fanciful rhetoric in their cut, cap and balance amendment that would require massive cuts to budgets. earlier this week one of the friends from the republican study committee had the temerity to offer an amendment to the bill that's being debated this week on appropriations for interior and e.p.a. that would have been 11%. and what did the republicans do when faced with a bill that would actually make them impose the cuts that they envision? they ran away from it. 104 of them voted with responsible democrats saying, we're not going to go that way. but they don't want to go that way, they're not stepping up and actually doing the cutting, they want to do it far in the future. and, lafment, it's abusive. we have a divided government. the american public want a balanced solution. they welcome tax reform and modest closing of loopholes to be able to avoid massive cuts in the future and be able to get on
a path to fiscal responsibility. but the republican minority has decided, no, it's our way or the highway, even if it means threatening our fiscal future. reject this sham. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from florida, mr. buchanan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. buchanan: mr. speaker, we need to cut spending today and reduce the deficit. and avoid the dangerous prospects of putting america for the first time in default. the bill before us today will accomplish that without raising taxes on the american people. with unemployment being what it is today in terms of looking at small businesses, it will not raise taxes on small businesses who are the job providers either. i support the budget control act because the time is now for congress and the president to do
what's in the best interest of the american people. our economy is struggling. our current national debt is over $14 trillion and we're adding $4.5 billion a day to our deficit and debt. $188 -- let me break that down, $188 million per hour to our deficits and debt, $4.5 billion a day. this reckless pattern of borrowing and spending has put our country on the road to bankruptcy. washington needs to show the american people that we can deal with these challenges today and in the future. i urge my colleagues to support the budget control act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, mr. pascrell from the great state of new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. chairman. i have the greatest amount of respect for the chairman of our committee, mr. chairman.
ways and means. but i think you're wrong on what you're trying to do today. do you remember may 31, mr. chairman? of this year? we took a vote may 31. in fact, we took a vote on raising the debt limit. the vote was based upon a resolution introduced in this house by the chairman of the ways and means committee. and he said when he introduced the piece of legislation on this floor that he hoped it would fail. he said, you are not going to get enough votes to get this done, so he set out to undermine his own resolution. now j.f.k. said, i do not shrink from this responsibility, i welcome it. i welcome my responsibility today, what i have to do. i'm going to have a pleasure to vote no. because i know what's happened since may 31, a day of infamy.
so i'll make it known that the bill couldn't pass so we'll release the american people to understand that. the american people don't want us to tell them what they need or what they want. they should tell us what they need and what they want. we think we know and most of the time we don't know on either side of the aisle. they're choosing to extend the state of economic and political turmoil another six months in this bill, we want to go through the holidays doing this back an forth? won't that be sweet? we'll make people think we're working. it's been over 200 days and still not one piece of job legislation from the majority on this floor. decades of ma jorts policies -- majorities' policies exploded the deficit. the cause of just the bush tax cuts will be 40% of the federal debt by 2019. and when you add in the two
wars, it will be 47%. who are we kidding here? the republican budget bill this year added $6 trillion to the national debt. i rest my case. live up to your responsibility, that's what the american people want us to do. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: thank you. at this time i yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from new york, mr. reid -- reed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of this bill. as a proud member of the freshmen class that came to washington, d.c., in november of 2010, i can tell you the culture of this city is changing. when i hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle put forth the argument that because we've raised the debt ceiling 102 times and seven times under president bush that somehow it makes it right for us to raise the debt ceiling without dealing
with the problem that's causing it to exist in the first place and that is the uncontrolled spending that has gotten us to this point of $14.4 trillion of national debt. as a member of the freshmen class, we have changed the culture of this place because now the debate is happening on the floor of this house and we're going to have to -- going to take it to the senate so they take it to the ploor of the senate and for once openly and honestly debate the issues of the day. but yet they still in the senate have not heard that call. but through this process they will. we wanted more but we realized that this is just a step in the process. the battle will go on, we will act responsibly today by passing this out of the house and cure the risk that comes from the risk of default. but don't make any mistake about it. the battle will go on and this is just the beginning. with that i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i now yield two minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, mr. about a shera of the great state of california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. becerra: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, the american people are way ahead of the politicians. they have been telling us over and over again we want a balance approach to reducing our deficits. one in five americans has said very clearly, we support the republican slash and burn default plan that we see before us that only cuts services to americans to try to help us balance our budget. but nearly three times as many americans have been saying over and over again, we want to see a balanced approach between those cuts to very important services, a little bit of pain, but also tax increases on all those folks
who have been taking advantage of those tax loopholes and making a ton of money. the american people don't think it's a good idea to cut medicare and social security and to cut medicaid, to protect tax loopholes for special interests. they've been seeing that over and over. but here's the biggest clue that our republican colleagues aren't listening to. the american people have said over and over that the biggest deficit our country faces today is a jobs deficit. after 204 days as the majority, republicans have only given us a slash and burn politics that has created not one single job for hardworking middle class families. in fact, instead of creating jobs, their major pieces of legislation could potentially cost two million more americans to lose their jobs. and the worst thing about this whole charade is that every single person here in this room today knows that this bill that we're discussing today won't go anywhere.
we face the very real possibility of an historic default in under a week and here we are spitting -- spinning our wheels. we all agree our nation must not default on its past obligations. the republican members here must abandoned their my way or the highway approach and work across the aisle on a balanced, bipartisan agreement to reduce our deficit, create jobs and protect our seniors and our middle clals. i say to my republican friends, america is not -- class. i say to my republican friends, america is not short on work ethic, we're short on jobs. it's time to get to the business of america and create those jobs. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: it is now my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman who is a member of our committee and the chair of our caucus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut for two minutes. mr. larson: thank you, mr. speaker, thank you, mr. levin.
at this very moment the whole world is watching in on the united states congress. it is a sad day for the united states congress. we in america, the preeminent military, economic and cultural leaders in the world are governing like we're a thirled world country -- third world country. t.s.a. sad time for this body -- it is a sad time for this body that we cannot come together. sad is the american public who looks in at this and recognizes that it's theater, except that it's become the theater of the absurd. in a frail recovery where americans are already overburdened, what we have in front of us is a manufactured ideological crisis. 18 times the debt ceiling was raised for ronald reagan.
eight times for george bush. because they would never stand in this body to see a default on the full faith and credit of the united states. as the world looks in and we default on a global economy and we default, march toward defaulting on a national economy, the most ruinous thing is that we are defaulting on household economies. what this body should be focusing on is dealing with this deficit and focusing, as mr. becerra said, on the real default that's taken place in congress, the lack of job creation, the need to put people back to work so that we can restore the dignity that only comes when people are able to sit across their dining table and look at one another and know that they have the dignity that comes from a job. .
we need not go through this hostage situation. why are we holding the american people hostage? let's put america back to work. we are a better nation and a better body than that. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, has 1 1/2 minutes. mr. levin: are you going to close? mr. camp: i'm going to close. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the the gentlelady from alabama. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from alabama. >> i am completely disappointed in our failure to work together. our constituents sent us here to solve america's problems not create more problems for them. the constituents of the 7th congressional district of alabama september me here to make sure i better their lives, not create fear and instability.
the entire world is watching us. and what are we showing them? we are showing them that we are completely detached from reality and that we don't care about their families, local governments, states and businesses and what they're facing. america's debts are serious. we all know that. we have to put our fiscal house in order. it's how we go about it. no matter how we got here, we have bills to pay and we must pay our bills. that's what we do, we pay our bill. the bill that is before us does not do that. what it does, it holds hostage america's promise, the promise that we made to students and to seniors, for social security, medicare and medicaid. it's unfair, i ask my colleagues in this house to vote against the bill on the floor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, continue to reserve?
mr. camp: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: this is an and difficult occasion of responsibility. this bill is going towhere and tries to fill the wounds of a divided republican caucus. we should do better and we will do better. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield myself such time as i may consume. and i have been listening to my friends on the other side for the course of this afternoon and i would just say to them, where is your plan? where is your legislation to address the debt problems of the united states? where are your ideas in legislation that is scored by the congressional budget office so that you could bring your alternative to the floor? this isn't the direction you want to go? where is your plan?
i noticed the other side, the senate, has not passed a budget in more than 800 days. frankly if they passed a budget on the other side, we might not be in this situation because we would have the avenue of reconciliation available to us. this is a second congress. the other body hasn't passed a budget. we've got no ideas from our friends from the other side how to address this issue. this is the second proposal that we have put forward that has been in legislative form, that has been scored where you can address the problems that are facing this country -- no, i will not yield. >> regular order, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the time is controlled by the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: we have had lots of rhetoric from the other side but no concrete plan. we have had lots of press releases from the other side, but no proposal.
even the president has not articulated one spending cut after giving us three years of trillion dollar deficits, after putting us on a path to more than double the debt of this country in less than half the time of the previous administration. i would say this is the proposal that will get our country on to a fiscal path that will prevent default and address the long-term debt obligations that this nation has run up, frankly, under both parties but need to address them now because the trajectory has become much worse in recent years. this is the plan. i urge a yes vote and i ask unanimous consent that the balance of my time be yielded to the budget committee. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? the gentleman has two minutes remaining and without objection, it will be yielded to the chairman of the budget committee. it is now in order under the rule to have 30 minutes of debate controlled by the
committee on the budget, mr. ryan of wisconsin, the chairman of the committee will control 17 minutes and mr. van hollen of maryland will control 15 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the chair would recognize the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, may i ask how much time is remaining between the two sides? the speaker pro tempore: you have 17. he has 15. mr. ryan: i would like to yield two minutes to a gentleman from
oklahoma, mr. lankford, member of the budget committee. mr. lankford:. i speak in support of this bill. i came on as a freshman and in january of this year, we were already talking about this moment. and for months the conversation has been, how do we reach a point of agreement. there have been lots of ideas that have been floated around and very few put down in writing. but the ideas seem to circle around a central theme, how can we find a middle ground to be able to resolve this issue. i propose this bill is that middle ground. the debt reduction that's in it was the framework that was formed in the biden talks. the select committee that's in it is something very important to the senate that harry reid raised that idea. the proposal to have a balanced budget amendment is very important to republicans who say let's have a moment to discuss
that and the statutory caps that are coming are very important to republicans. this is a bill that has been discussed in its essence and in its core in a bipartisan fashion. and while we search for a compromise, i would suggest that we have found it and we are about to vote on it. this is a moment to be able to look at it and say it is not the draconian monster that has been described. it allows a simple way to be able to handle one of the most difficult issues that we have dealt with in a very long time. ultimately, we bump up against an issue that is significant because of this one key truth. why has this not been a problem before? why haven't we passed it and added to the debt ceiling year after year after year. we have done that but reached $14 trillion and 100% of g.d.p. and we have to deal seriously with how do we start paying down our debt, not just our interest payments but our debt.
at this moment in time, it becomes a key moment to say let's resolve the problem and deal with difficult issues and work on these together. both parties, both houses and be able to settle the issue, but do it in a form that forms long-term solutions. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. mr. van hollen: sthanching you, mr. speaker -- thank you, mr. speaker. it's high time to stop playing rush and rule et with the american economy and american jobs and that's what this will measure does. it says ok, america, we are going to pay america's bills, but only for five more months and only if we put in motion a plan that will end the medicare guarantee and slash education. the proposal before us today will put the american economy and american jobs at even greater jeopardy over the next five months than they are today. it deliberately, by choice,
keeps the economy under a cloud of instability and uncertainty. it chooses to risk higher interest rates and shrinking retirement funds, a hit on every american family. so why would we choose to intentionally keep this cloud hanging over the country and the american people? we're told that we have to do it in order to force this congress to reduce the deficit. that's what we're told. but the actions tell a very different story. the actions suggest this is not about reducing the deficit, it's about reducing the deficit in a particular way, the way the republican plan wants to reduce the deficit. that's why our republican colleagues walked out of talks three times and have rejected the balanced approach and framework put forward by the president that says let's do $4 trillion in deficit reduction and delrs 3 trillion in spending
cuts. and asking the folks at the very top to go back to the rates they were paying during the clinton administration. our republican colleagues rejected that approach to reducing the deficit because they don't want to end these tax breaks for the purpose of reducing the deficit. in fact, passed a piece of legislation just a week ago that says we are going to keep america from paying our bills unless we enact a constitutional amendment that makes it easier to cut medicare and social security than it does to cut special interests subsidies. a majority vote, but you need supermajority if you want to cut corporate tax breaks for the purpose of reducing the deficit. that's what this is all about. this particular issue on the debt ceiling is a manufactured crisis. we have all heard when president reagan was president, raised it 17 times. this is a manufactured crisis in order to force and squeeze
through a particular deficit reduction plan, a deficit reduction plan that would end the medicare guarantee, cut education, and yet protect the special interest tax breaks and breaks at the very top. if we want to be serious about the deficit, we need a balanced approach, but let's not hold the entire american economy hostage. let's not put us on five months to five months interest rate and credit worthyness watches in order to jam through a particular idea on deficit reduction. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan. mr. ryan: i yield myself one minute to respond. i enjoyed listening to the talking points but i don't think they apply to this bill. rush and roulette, this is the second piece of legislation we brought to the floor to responsibly raise the debt limit while cutting spending. manufactured crisis, who went on television to scare senior
citizens that their social security checks might be in doubt? the president of the united states. mr. speaker, the cuts in this bill were agreed to in a bipartisan group. the level of cuts in this bill are $2 billion off the senate majority leader's cuts in his bill. these were agreed to on a bipartisan basis. we're cutting spending, not as much as we want, but at least we're cutting spending. rush and roulette is not getting debt limit under control. this is scaring seniors into giving this country another blank check and keep spending money we don't have. i yield two minutes to the the gentleman from new hampshire.
mr. guinta: i rise to support the bill before us, the budget control act of 2011. mr. speaker, this is about leadership and ability and willingness of this body to do something right, not for partisan purposes but for spending reductions and for the country. i hear from the other side that they are concerned about this component and that component, but what i don't see is a plan and a solution. we have not put one, but two different proposals, the one i co-sponsored cut, cap and balance is the most appropriate way to move forward, but the senate has decided they don't want to take up that piece of legislation, so we are here to compromise and work with the other side of the aisle to get something accomplished on behalf of real structural change in how we spend taxpayer dollars, other people's money. i took an oath to make sure i uphold the constitution. i also will make sure that i represent new hampshire in the manner in which they would like
me to represent them. and i contend that they would like us to reduce expenditures, reduce our debt, reduce our deficit and this bill does that. they want to see us cap spending. we all have to live within the means we have. we take in $2.2 trillion a year and spending $3.7 trillion. nobody in america has that balance sheet. the time now to act. no more partisan politics, or baseless charges from members of this body. let's do the right thing and let's make sure that we can send a message to the country that we can work in a bipartisan fashion to do what everybody understands what we need to do which is spend no more than we take in. and in exchange for that, we allow this president to raise the debt ceiling, to pay for the 41 cents of every dollar that we continue to borrow. that policy has to stop.
those days are over. i support this bill and i urge my colleagues here in the house and the senate to do the same. i yield back. . >> we keep hearing from our colleagues that this was put forward by the president. mr. van hollen: he said he'll do $3 in spending cuts for $1 in revenue for debt reduction. if someone wants to take us up on that option, that would be terrific. because our republican colleagues walked out of that discussion, senator reid did put on the table a proposal that has been scored by the congressional budget office, i have their score in my hand, dated july 27, 2011, it would reduce the deficit by $2.2 trillion, more than the $917 billion score in the republican proposal. this is a nonpartisan,
independent, c.b.o. score. the difference is, he would raise the debt ceiling for two years, so we don't keep the economy under a cloud, so we don't keep the threat of higher interest rates going into effect which would be a hit on every american family. why we would choose to deliberately keep the economy under a cloud and put jobs at risk is a mystery. the only answer is, our republican colleagues want to use that as a forcing mechanism to ultimately put in place their budget plan which does end the medicare guarantee, does slash education, and does protect corporate tax loopholes. with that, i yield one minute to a terrific member of the budget committee, ms. schwartz, the gentlelady from pennsylvania. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. schwartz: we are faced with an important moment for our nation. a moment of economic uncertainty a moment to significantly reduce our deficit and make the right choices for our future.
the boehner bill does neither and as a result there is little support from either side of the aisle because it does not seriously reduce the deficit and ensures uncertainty in the markets for many, many months ahead and cuts $1 trillion over 10 years. speaker boehner had the opportunity to reduce the deficit not by $1 trillion but $4 trillion and walked away from that plan. the gang of six a bipartisan effort, reduced the deficit by $3 trillion and he rejected that plan as well. this moment is about choices. speaker boehner made a choice to walk away from the plan that offered trillions in deficit reduction and subts constituted instead a political document with significantly less deficit reduction. this is not a serious proposal. we have little time to avoid default. let's stop wasting time. members from both sides of the aisle should reject this bill, it's an adequate -- it's an
inadequate response to deficit reduction and the harm it will do to the nation's economy. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. cole. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: every now and then you need to step back and look at the record and put the rhetoric aside. when this majority showed up in january of this last year, we found a situation where our fends on the other side of the aisle had failed to write a budget for this year, failed to pass any appropriations bills, and had just sort of gone home. we had a president who had appointed a debt reduction commission and yet failed to embrace any of their actions at all. not one. then we heard the president come and address us in this chamber, state of the union message, didn't bostonner to mention the looming debt crisis for 35 minutes.
35 minutes. then the first serious proposal we got from that president, our president, was for a $400 billion reduction over 10 years that was so laughable, when it was brought up in the united states senate, which his bod -- which is controlled by his party, it failed 97-0. the the president wanted to have a free vote on raising the debt ceiling. let's just raise it, go ahead, and see what happens. we obviously don't support that. we think there ought to be spend regular duckses but we said, sure, you've got the vote. fewer than 100 of my friends on the other side supported their own president when he asked for that vote. so we clearly weren't sufficiently motivated to do that. now we've reached a point where, last week, we actually did raise the debt ceiling by $2.7 trillion, we did institute cuts that, frankly, are going
to happen anyway they coincide with my friend mr. ryan's budget and put caps on long-term spending and said, just give the american people a chance. just a chance, vote on a balanced budget amendment. not asking that it pass, but don't you think they ought to have the right through their state legislatures to make that decision? we were denied that. i ask the gentleman for an additional minute. mr. ryan: i yield the gentleman an adegreesal minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: now we are at a point where we are about to once again raise the debt ceiling and do it in a responsible way, a way that i predict will probably become the pattern in the future this body should never raise the debt ceiling again automatically. we've done it on our side, our friends have done it, we should always couple it with spend regular straint and reform. that's what we're doing in this measure this majority has enacted a budget, my friend has taken a lot of flak for that budget, but i'm proud to be
associated with it, body has, or will twice raise the debt ceiling and as for the president's plan we hear about, i'd just like to see it. just once. i haven't seen anything or heard anything like this since richard nixon had a secret plan to end the war. the president must have a secret plan because it's not on paper, it's not been scored, it's not been publicly presented to anybody. to act like -- and by the way, one last thing on that, if speaker reid -- excuse me, an additional minute? mr. ryan: yield an additional minute. mr. cole: if the leader's plan scores at $2.2 trillion, i guess we have a $4 trillion deficit. we have $3 trillion and we don't count the extra trillion which is automatic because the wars are ending. i think we ought to up ours, we have a $4 trillion plan, ought to give the majority leader the credit for that, for finding
that additional trillion and if you'll just vote for this, we'll have your magic $4 trillion plan done. our three, senator reid's one that adds up to what we wanted. let's pass it, give the senate an opportunity to pass it and give the president an opportunity to sign it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. van hollen: i don't think the american people want us to be doing this every five months, that it becomes business as usual that we put the country through this crisis situation with the threat of rising interest rates and all the negative economic consequences that would happen and because the grand babar -- bargain is now off the table, senator reid has put forward a proposal, and again, i have the c.b.o. scoring of it right here, $2.2 trillion, more than the proposal, more cuts than the proposal on the table here from our republican leagues,
the big difference being, he doesn't want to say every five months, let's put the country into economic crisis and all the uncertainty between now and five months from now that that will create. with that, i yield one minute to mr. ryan a terrific member of the budget committee from ohio. mr. ryan: i thank the gentleman. one of the issues we want on the table here is revenue. the top 400 wealthiest people in the united states of america pay 17% tax rate. my constituents in youngstown and akron, ohio, pay a heck of a lot more than 17%. we hear our friends on the other side of the aisle, how all these changes need to occur, how all these problems need to be solved, but heaven forbid, mr. speaker, we ask the 400 wealthiest families in the
united states of america to maybe be a little bit patriotic and help us out. and you'll say, well these are the job creators. these taxes won't go into place for another year or two. we've got to get through this downturn. but we need to send a message to the bond market that we are serious. and for us to be this irresponsible and not ask the wealthiest, what are they being asked to sacrifice here? what are the top 1%, what are we asking them to sacrifice? i ask for an additional 15 seconds. mr. van hollen: i yield an additional 15 seconds. mr. ryan: one final point. the debt we are now debating was run up by our friends on the other side. two wars, the bush tax cut and a prescription drug plan, all on the credit card, and now the same people who worked their way up in the leadership position are saying, we're not going to pay the bill. this is irresponsible. let's solve this in a balanced way and let's ask for some
shared sacrifice. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, let me -- i yield myself two minutes. the gentleman, my friend from maryland, keeps talking about the reid plan, that the senate majority leader, i've got the c.b.o. score, it says $2.2 trillion. $2.2 trillion increase that means it doesn't raise the debt limit less than we cut spending, so it cuts less, but more importantly, $1.3 trillion of that money is accounting tricks and budget gimmicks. mr. speaker, the american people are tired of all the accounting tricks and the budget gimmicks that go on in washington. let me explain what $1.3 trillion of this does. it says that, imagine that we're at war for 10 years, in afghanistan and iraq at surge levels.
we assume we're going to be fighting this war for 10 more years, with over 100,000 troops in afghanistan and oh, gosh, wait, we're going to withdraw our troops in 2014. $1 trillion in savings. i've got a better idea. let's pass a bill to cover the moon with yogurt that will cost $5 trillion today. and then let's pass a bill the next day to cancel that bill. we could save $5 trillion. wait, i've got a better idea. our debt is $14 trillion. let's come up with a new plan to spend $14 trillion, then rescind it the next day and let's save $14 trillion. this stuff is fiscal fantasy. you can't make this stuff up, mr. speaker. suggesting that we're going to be in a war at these levels for 10 more years when everybody knows we've already decided not
to do that, that does not get us $1.3 trillion in spending cuts. only in washington can you add up math like that. we need real spending cuts. i yield myself an additional minute to say, this is getting serious, mr. speaker. very serious. we can't keep spending money we just don't have. 42 cents of every dollar coming out of this place is borrowed money. it doesn't just threaten our children and grandchildren anymore. it is hurting our economy today. half of that money is coming from other countries like china. why on earth do we want to give the president a blank check to keep doing that, giving our sovereignty and self-determination to other countries to loan us money to fund our government? those kay days have got to end.
-- those days have got to end. this bill doesn't cut as much as we want. we passed a bill with $6.2 trillion in spending cuts, in real cuts. this cuts about $1 trillion. let's cut this $1 trillion and bank that money and cut some more. that's what we're trying to do, be responsible. the problem isn't that we don't tax americans enough. the problem is we're spending way too much money. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: of course we should be reducing the deficit. of course we should make sure that we don't rely on the chinese as our bankers anymore. which is why it's so ironic that our republican colleagues refuse to cut subsidies for oil companies by one penny for the purpose of reducing the deficit so we don't have to rely on borrowing from china anymore. in fact if you look at exxon
o's quarterly profits today, they're through the roof. i'm all for having exxon make money, but why should they have taxpayer money on top of it? yet our republican colleagues get up here and talk about how we're dependent on china but they don't want to break that dependency if it means actually asking the top oil companies to get rid of their subsidiers in purpose of deficit reduction. so let's get serious. now, with respect to the plan that's been put forward by senator reid, i listen to my colleague, i would point out to the body that if you look at the republican budget and the documents that accompanied it, when they pointed out what their savings were relative to the c.b.o. baseline, they also show $1 trillion in savings from the global war on terrorism. as my friend -- >> will the gentleman yield? mr. van hollen: as my friend, the chairman, knows that's the function of the way the congressional budget office scores, but it is also a fact that when the republican budget was presented, they presented both relative to the
president's baseline and the congressional budget baseline. i further make the point, even if you take that off the table the proposal by senator reid cuts, cuts immediately more on spending than the republican proposal before us today. the difference being he doesn't keep the economy hanging under a cloud for five months and make this country go through this exercise just by the end of december. and with that i would yield a minute to the distinguished member of congress from illinois, mr. jackson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois. mr. jackson: soon, my colleagues will be quoting dr. king's i have a dream speech, and here's the quote they will not read and they will ignore. in a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. when the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent wrotes of the constitution and the declaration of independence they were signing a promissory note. this note was a promise that men, yes, black men as well as
white men, would be guaranteed the unalien able rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. america has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as the men of color are concerned. america has given the people a bad check, a check that has come back marked insufficient funds. but we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. the problem, mr. chairman, is not that we spend, it's that's we don't honor our obligations. we are a nation that spends billions of dollars to put a man on the moon, fund the war in afghanistan, fund the war in iraq but we can't find the money in this congress to put a man on his own two feet right here in america. and that is something more fundamental, mr. speaker, that's going on here. this president is being treated differently than other presidents. no other president has been stuck up, shook down or held hostage as the president of the united states over this. this is fundamentally unfair,
mr. speaker, to change the rule in the middle of the game. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. and the chair would respectfully ask that members heed the gavel and only consume the amount yielded to them by the floor managers. the chair would recognize the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i'd yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, the chairman of the house republican conference, the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, this nation has a debt crisis, not because we are undertaxed but because washington spends too much. and here we are days before the president's august 2 deadline and the president of the united states has yet to submit a plan to deal with the debt crisis. here we are days away from the president's august 2 deadline and the united states senate has yet to pass a single plan.
days before the president's august 2 deadline not only have house republicans passed their first plan, in a matter of hours we will vote on another plan to deal with the debt crisis that we must remember is spending driven. it's the president's spending that brought us here. now, the bill that we're bringing to the house floor, mr. speaker, is not the ultimate solution. but, mr. speaker, it assures that this nation pays its current bills like families, like small businesses have to. it gives us the opportunity to actually cut spending. you know, the amounts are not what they should be, mr. speaker, but for the second year in a row we will have the opportunity to actually reduce spending to save our country and save our children's future.
but most importantly, mr. speaker, within this legislation is the opportunity that brings us the ultimate solution and that, mr. speaker, is a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution. every family, every small business, almost every state has a provision that says we have to balance our budget. should we expect less of a great nation? maybe that's why we have the $14 trillion in debt. we have to act today, approve this bill, balance the budget for our children and future generations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan. mr. ryan: i'll yield myself two minutes at this time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, this legislation before us today is a down payment. does this cut the amount of
money we need to save our country from a death debt crisis? no. our budget does that. this is 2/3 of the spending cuts we called for in discretionary spending. is it 100% of the cuts we asked for? no. it's 2/3 of the cuts we asked for. what does the president's budget do? it actually spends $130 billion more. i'll take 2/3 of the step in the right direction instead of going in the wrong direction, the president's plan. the congressional budget office, we asked them to take a look at the president's framework. c.b.o. director told me under oath they can't score speeches. this plan reject the president's fiscal demands for tax increases and it rejects its political demands for a blank check to get them through the election. what we are doing here today is getting serious about getting spending under control. the spending cuts that are in
this bill were already agreed to by bipartisan talks. why are people hiding from that? this is the second bill we will have passed to avoid a default. that's responsible. it has been 820 days, 820 days since the senate even tried passing a budget. the president, as we know, has yet to offer a plan to fix this problem. we passed a budget to fix this problem. we passed a man to deal with the debt limit, and now we're passing another plan based upon mutually agreed to spending cuts that gets 2/3 of the cuts we already called for in this category of government. that's reasonable. that's responsible. and that is what we should be doing. instead, we hear all this empty rhetoric and all this call for a blank check and all these accounting gimmicks and budget gimmicks from the other side
who are trying to do everything they can to do anything but cut spending. and with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. just to be very clear, the senate leader, the democratic leader, mr. reid, has put on the table a plan that would cut more immediately than the republican plan before us today even if you don't include, even if you don't include the overseas contingency account funding. the difference is he would not put our economy in jeopardy again just five months from now as the republican plan did. with that i yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, we're talking about being serious, and here we're considering a $2 trillion bill, $200 billion a year, slapped together behind closed doors, less than 24 hours when
it was printed, no amendments that 53 senators already say they're going to oppose. we have a situation where last december we passed $400 billion a year tax cuts, and now everybody says we need $400 billion a year in deficit reduction. this bill does not cut anything. it has caps. promises for cuts in the future. and we don't know what those cuts are going to be. mr. ryan: will the gentleman yield? mr. scott: we know in a continuing resolution -- i only have one minute. f.b.i. agents, air traffic controllers, flu shots, water grants, schools, scientific research, transportation, health and human services, we can expect all those to be cut in the future all to preserve tax cuts, many for millionaires and oil companies. that's not right. let's go through the regular process so we know what we're doing.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. you know what we've seen play out here is a few years back we provided tax breaks that went disproportionately to the very rich in the country. now, all of a sudden we say, well, and we can't pay our bills any more. a good part of that reason being the tax cuts, but how are we going to deal with these bills? we are going to sock it to middle-class america, whether it's through cuts in education or cuts in medicare and because we don't want to cut oil subsidies. just today exxon reported huge profits. god bless them for making all this money, but why do they need any of ours, our taxpayer money? and that is the rub of the issue. it's not whether we reduce the deficit. it's how. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair has been advised that it's the intention of the
chamber -- chairman of the budget committee, mr. ryan, to hold on to his one minute. the gentleman from maryland has a minute and 3/4 and the chair has been advised that whenever you're done with whatever portion you are going to use we will go through other legislation. mr. van hollen: so i understand -- if i were to use 3/4 of a minute i could reserve a minute later, is that correct? the speaker pro tempore: that's exactly right. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself 45 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. van hollen: just to say we as a body needs to do two things. number one, we need to make sure the united states pays its bills. we need to make sure it pays its bills and we shouldn't do it in a way that puts the american economy in jeopardy every five months. just listen to the folks, the experts who have been monitoring this. they said if you do this on a five-month period you will risk interest rates going up.
second, we need to reduce the deficit. of course we do. we need to do it in a balanced way. the president has proposed $3 in spending cuts to $1 in revenue but we can't get our colleagues on the republican side to get one penny, not one penny of revenue from closing a corporate tax loophole if the purpose is deficit reduction. and there is the rub. so, mr. speaker, let's reject this wrong approach. senator reid has a proposal on the table. cuts more than the one that the republicans does but it doesn't put the economy in jeopardy every five months. the speaker pro tempore: so both sides have a minute. it's the chair's intention now to postpone consideration and let -- mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, i yield the last minute to the terrific democratic leadership in the house, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. speaker.
i thank the gentleman for yielding. i commend him for his tremendous leadership. we couldn't be prouder than the way he has represented the values of the american people both as the ranking member of the budget committee and also at the table with the bipartisan talks with mr. clyburn under the leadership of the vice president -- vice president boyden. and too bad that the progress that was made in those meetings to have a balanced, bipartisan initiative to bring to the floor to give confidence to the market, to give confidence to the american people didn't succeed because the republicans walked away from those talks. mr. speaker, last week our speaker, speaker boehner, said he couldn't reach an agreement with president obama because they had different visions of our country. president obama has a vision,
shares the vision with the american people. when we look to find our common ground and take it to a higher ground, i think all americans agree that we want to educate our children for their own self-fulfillment. but also to keep america number one by having innovation which springs from education and from the classroom. i think all americans share the higher ground, the common ground when it comes to the creation of jobs, good-paying jobs here in america for the economic stability of america's families and of our economy. i think all americans agree that we must have a dignified retirement for our seniors where they have health and economic security. that's why medicare and medicaid and social security are so important to the american people. i think all americans agree
that we must keep the american people safe, both in our national security and our economic security and one must do so in a fiscally sound way. without adding to the deficit. that is president obama's vision of our country system of i think that one -- and i'm sure that speaker baper must share those views. so if that is the reason, the different vision of our country, maybe it is, hopefully it is not, hopefully they share that vision, why are we where we are today? i believe it is because it wasn't about not sharing a vision for our country. i believe it is because the purpose of these talks was to reduce the deficit. my belief is that the republicans came to the table not to reduce the deficit but
to go way beyond that and to dismantle decades of progress made in a bipartisan way for america's great middle class. if in fact the purpose was deficit reduction and a very -- in a very strong way, we were on that path in the biden talks and the talks subsequent to it. we all agreed that there had to be substantial cuts, that we had to subject dollars spent, federal dollars spent to make sure we got our money's worth for u.s. taxpayers. democrats wanted revenue. we wanted sharing of the sacrifice in all of this republicans did not. but we still could come to a place, as senator reid did and as our distinguished ranking member referenced, at a place that used the proposals that
republicans had in the ryan budget and in proposals they had agreed to in the talks to reach a strong deficit reduction number that would enable us to come to agreement and put this matter to rest until february of 2013. so we would remove all doubt in the markets that we were going to honor our debts, we were not going to default on previous spending. the purpose was not to lift the ceiling to spend more. it was to lift the ceiling to pay for previous obligations. and that there would be that 18-month certainty. instead, the republicans have come forth with a proposal that, as i said, dismantles, this isn't about deficit reduction, this is about dismantling the public sector.
and in doing, they want to do it for six months, which means the minute this thing would be accomplished, we would have to start all over again. i believe the american people were disappointed that this has taken so long and angry that it is happening because of the uncertainty it brings to their lives and disgusted with the whole process and they are so, rightly so. because if our purpose is reduce the deficit, we certainly can do that. if our purpose is to dismantle progress to the middle class, we won't be a party to it. i come -- i think that the six months not only in terms of uncertainty is also a job killer. it has front loaded cuts that will deter, impede, the growth of our economy, our comeback,
and again, kill jobs. every day that we are debating this is another day that we are not talking about job creation. every day. republican bills that they have brought to the floor in the first 200 days of their majority, now it's 205, would amount to nearly two million jobs lost. just under 10,000 jobs a day. lost by the proposals they have brought to the floor. the american people's top priority is the creation of jobs. jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. instead of this prolonged dismantling of the public sector attempt, we should
instead have reached agreement. we still can. on a balanced, bipartisan approach. i want to say something as a mom about this dismantling of the public sector. i view my role in politics as an extension of my role as a mother and now a grandmother. as parents, all of us know that we want to do everything we can for our children, to help them grow, be healthy, to learn, to reach their fulfillment. but there are things we can't do for them. we have to look to the public sector in order for them, and moms can identify with this, i'm sure, to make sure they have clean drinking water, that the air they breathe is clean, that there is food safety. we can't do that ourselves. we can't do that ourselves. that is a public role. the list goes on, the education of our children, the health
security of grandparents, now being a fwrarnte myself, but in terms of medicare and medicaid all the things that are important to children, their health, their education, the economic security of their families, the pension security and health security of their grandparents, the safety of their neighborhoods. some of these are private roles, some of these are public roles, some are public-private roles. but as a mom, i call upon all mothers across the country to understand what this bill does for the health and well being of america's children and really it's ironic because any speech that you hear on the floor, in meetings, and all the rest they say we must reduce the deficit because it's immoral to pass along deficits to our children. well i think it's wrong to pass along private or public debt to
our children. but what we are doing here is to pass along to our children a future less bright because of the -- again, i'll say it again, the dismanting of the public sector, which is an ideological goal long held by our friends. they would rather see seniors pay more for medicare, they'd rather cut medicaid and jeopardize social security, while they give tax subsidies to big oil, making record profits, tax breaks to corporations sending jobs overseas, and tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our country at the expense of the education of their children and health and well being of our country. i hope that the house will reject this measure. i know that people of good
intention to reduce the deficit can find a path to do that. it can't be too late because we have a deadline on august 2. but i want to pay my respects to president obama, who has been respectful of every suggestion proposed by the republicans, giving it the time and attention that they thought it deserved. he tried to accommodate all of those, to have a balanced, bipartisan approach, and what did the republicans do? walk away from the table. the american people know about this. that's why 50-something percent of the american people support the balanced, bipartisan approach that the president says we should strive to achieve and only about 19% of the american people support the proposal that is put forth by the republicans.
this house should reject that. we should come together, use the work that has been done already to do something that will remove all doubt that we pay our bills, to remove all doubt that we are a strong economy that recognizes the role we play in the global economy, but also recognizes that all of this has an impact in the lives of everyday americans as they sit around their kitchen table, thinking about what will they do if credit goes -- the cost of credit goes up and that means there are credit card bills, house payment, car payment, the rest are more expensive to them. this is very costly in terms of confidence and in terms of making ends meet. let's be responsible. reject this bill, get back to work so that on tuesday, we will have met our obligations. that's the least that we can do
senator from new york. mr. schumer: thank you, madam president. i would just like to underscore what the
leader has said. speaker boehner is busy twisting arms right now to try and get his bill passed through the house. but -- but it's a futile gesture because that bill is not going to pass the senate. we have made that clear in the letter that 53 of us signed yesterday and nothing has changed. the idea that we will take boehner's bill and pass it or take boehner's bill and tweak it and pass it is not what is going to happen. and so we would urge speaker boehner and all of our republican colleagues to sit down and negotiate. throwing a hot potato over to us that won't pass just delays things a day and we are simply four days away from one of the worst financial catastrophes thatould face this country. namely, for the first te in our 230-year history, a refusal
to pay the debt. and that means that the time for these kinds of political games and political posturing is over. speaker boehner's having a rough time getting the votes over here but my guess is he will. it won't make a darn bit of difference. it won't make a darn bit of difference because it's not going toass this house, the senate. it will not pass because a short-term extension risks the same things that no extension risks: a downgrade, a lack of confence in the markets and gridlock. we've seen gridlock up to now. three, four, five, six months fromow the same gridlock will occur. we cannot play with this kind of risky fire. so our plea to the speaker is stop continuing to throw pieces
of red meat after red meat after red meat, piece after pce after piece of red meat to that right-wing lion i your caucus. start taming the lion. that's what you have to do, because otherwise tt lion will devour you and devr the ecomy of our country. the kind of narrow ideological approach that we have seen in the house will not get us anywhere. and the shame of it all is thaty member of the house, and i don't believe the speaker, has that ideology, the sort of my way or no way ideology, the no-compromise ideology. and it's time to break free. it's time to do what's good for the country. a short-term solution will not work. e lder has just made it
clear that as soon as the house passes its bill, it will be defeated here in the senate. let's not waste five, six, seven, eight more hours. let's start negotiating something that will save this country from potential financial catastrophe now. a senator: would the senator yield for a question? mr. schumer: be happy to yield to my friend from iowa. mr. harkin: i thank the senator from new york for his very lucid remarks and for his great leadership in trying to get -- get through this mess that we're in. you know, i say to my friend, a lot of people in -- in the country are looking and they're thinking that this is some kind of a food fight,omehow that we're both -- everybody's to blame for this here in washington. i ask my friend, the senator from new york, isn't it true that there are some 50 members of the republican caucus in the house who have said forthrightly
that they will not vote to raise the debt ceiling under any circumstance? one of those, of course, being representative bachmann, who is seeking the presidential nomination on their sic ticket,d she would not vote to raise it underny circumstance, under any circumstance. does the senate know of any one democrat, either in the house or the senate, who has said they will not vote to raise the debt ceiling under any circumstance? i ask the senator, is there one? i have not been able to find one. mr. schumer: i thank my colleague from iowa for the question. i concu in his findings. i haven't found one either. democrats know -- we have differing views on this side of the aisle and many of us would write deficit-reduction bills differently than some others of us would, but we realize that to let the debt ceiling lapse would be a disaster, to not raise it.
and so i have not, i have not heard of a single democrat who has said the debt ceiling ought to lapse. and i've heard scores of republicans, elected official republicans, and thousands of others and groups in that right-wing firm mean firmament g their members to let this debt ceiling lapse. my guess, is god, forbid, it happens, and we're doing everything we can to prevent it from happening, they will retract that language or they will fd ways to explain what they really meant because their analysis that it doesn't matter or it won't do much harm is unfortunately dead wrong. happy to yield. mr. harkin: if the senator would yield for another question, again, there's a lot of misunderstanding and i can -- i sympathize with this among the general populous that somehow raising the debt ceiling means
that somehow we can go and borrow more money in the future and go further in debt. isn't it true that raising the debt ceiling just simply means that we're going to pay for what so many of us, republicans and democrats, have voted in the past to appropriate money for? it's like using your credit card, i ask my friend from new york, isn'tt, it's like using your credit card, you go out and buy something, and now you say, "but i don't want to pay the bill." i think that kind of puts it in terms that the average american can understand. if you've used your credit card and you've run up a debt, you've got to pay the bills. otherwise, your credit is going to go down and you're going to lose your creditard, you're not going to be able to do anything else. isn't that sort of what we're confronting here, is that -- is that republicans and democrats in the past -- we all share the
blame, perhaps, for having deficits, and we can go into the causes of that. i don't mean to do that here. but the fact is, the united states of america has an obligation to pay its bills and the republicans say, no, they don't want to pay the bills. doesn't that sort of strike the average american as saying, wait a minute, no, we have to honor our debts? we have always honored our debts in this country since the revolutionary war, is that not the fact? mr. schumer: that is absolutely the fact. my colleague from iowa is exactly correct. bottom line is, yes, these -- what we're talking about with the debt ceiling is debts we've alrey incurred. no american family has the luxury, once they sign up for a mortgage, to tell the bank, "well, i'm not going to pay you unless you do a, b, c." no american family has the luxury of telling the credit card company, "hey, unless you buy me a year's supply of groceries, i'm not going to pay my credit card debt."
once you incur the debt, you have an obligation to pay. that is one of the foundations of american life. it's been that foundation since alexander hamilton argued with thomas jefferson and it's served our country well. the awful example that it would set if america, this great land, this federal government said, well, i'm not going to pay the debt, we're not going to pay the debt unless a, b, c, d is done, what kind of example doe that set to american families, to american young people? it's the opposite, frankly, of the conservative philosophy, part of which i agree with in this regard, that you pay your bills, that you pay your debts. and if you don't, you have a -- there's a consequence. so it is just amazing. this is the first time i
believe -- and check the history books -- in america history where a large group in either house of this congress, has said, has made it a campaign not to pay the debt unless they get their way on certain other issues, whatever they be. and if every one of us did that, this country would be paralyzed, we wouldn't be able to do a thing. it is leading down a road that nobody should want to travel on. i yield. mr. harkin: i ask the senator -- i'd like to ask one more question then i will yield. isn't it -- isn't it true that we -- i'd say the senator from new york has been a leader in this and so many others here -- that, look, we want to, first of all, pay our bills but then we want to get our deficit under control and reduce our debt. and to that end, we have i think on the democratic side, i would
say, we have tried to propose a balanced approach, a balanced approach, i ask my friend from new york, who's been a leader in this area, of both cutting spending and also raising revenueo that we're kind of all in this together. we're not -- we're asking everyone -- everyone -- we're not willing just to cut the deficit on the backs of the poor or people who are out of work, the elderly on medicare. we're saying everybody's got to take a little bit but we're also going to ask some sacrifice for those who have much in our society, that we want to raise some revenues from those who have benefited in the last0, 15 years so much and have gotten so much wealth in our society, we're asking for them also to share in this. we have proposed that, have we not, i ask the senator? and has it not been true that the republican side has been unwilling to ask the richest
people in our country to help -- help us reduce the deficit? they will not agree to any revenues, i ask my friend from new york, is that not the fact? mr. schumer: again, my colleague from iowa is on the money. there needs to be balance. the president has stressed this. i think everyone on our side has stressed this. we do have a serious deficit problem and a serious debt problem. we have to deal with it. i think there's agreement in this chamber. and i'll give some credit to those on the other side of the aisle who made this their signature issue in influencing policy. but if you're going to have to do that and do belt tightening, shouldn't it be across the board? and here's the fact of the matter. if you're a middle-class person, it's hard to pay for college, it's hard to pay for, say, prescription drugs, it's hard to take that paycheck and make sure it deals with all the needs that
you and your spouse and your children have. and over the years, we've established ways that the government helps, with student loans or with prescription drug programs, other kinds of help. it so happens that the wealthy among us, god bless them, they don't need a student loan. they have plenty of money to pay for their children's college. they don't need a prescription drug plan. even with the high expense of these prescription drugs, they can afford it. god bless them. the way the wealthy benefit from the tax code, because they have a lot of money, is their tax expenditures, tax breaks that they get. they think they're important. i understand that. but they're no more important than helping young people go to college or helping our elderly average folks pay for their prescription drugs. and if you're going to be across
the board and y're going to say, no revenues, you're going to have an unbalanced and unfair approach. and let me say this. our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have tried to scare people. this has not happened just this year but for many years. they say democrats want to raise your taxes. that is not the case if you are an average middle-class american. in fact, the president has made it a watchword and we have religiouy concurred and followed, that no one who makes above -- below $250,000 a year should get any tax increase. that's 97% of all america. so when we say we want revenues, we're talking about two things. we're talking about tax bres, tax look holes for the -- tax loopholes for the very wealthy, whether they be individuals or corporations, and we are talking about tax breaks for the wealthiest among us who under
the previous administration got much greater breaks than anybody else. and that is all we are talking about. so i would ask my colleagues, i would ask the american people to understand that. don't be scared when somebody gets up and says, "they want to raise taxes" that it means your taxes. it doesn't unless, god bless you, you have a whole lot of money or you're a corporation with a very nice little break that may not be as necessary as, say, paying -- helping middle-class students go to college or helping the elderly get lifesaving prescription drugs. so there has to be balance. i know my good colleague from iowa who has spent his lifetime creating government programs that help people, it pains him when he hears there has to be spending cuts in those programs.
but i have never heard him say if there are any spending cuts, i'm not going to vote for deficit reduction. but the mirror image on this side says i will vote for any bill if it even has one plug nickel of revenues, and that is not fair, that is not right, that is not balanced, and it is totally against what just about every american believes, including a majority of republicans. so that's why we're here making this fight. and i'd say one other thing in reference to my colleague's question. it is unfair when the commentators and the people say on the one hand the democrats are uncompromising and on the other hand the republicans aren't compromising. i understand that we should always not just look at our own position and try to understand somebody else's position. that's the way it works around here. otherwise we'd have a dictator. a benevolt dictator.
we don't. but when we are willing to give on spending cuts, serio spending cuts that we don't like and the other side says they're not willing to give a nickel on revenues, it's not each side is failing to give. it's not that each side is compromising about equally. it's not that each side has walked about the same distance to come up with a compromise. in this case, it's not true every time -- they have been unwilling, my republican friends have been unwilling to compromise one jot, and we have been willing to do things very painful to us. so i would say to my friends who comment and write about this, be fair. let the public know who is willing to move away from their
hard-line position for the sake of compromise, for the sake of renewing the debt ceiling, for the sake of getting our large debt and deficit down, and who has refused to budge. i think the answer is pretty obvious. i yield the floor.d the floor. mr. corker: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee is recognized. mr. corker: thank you. mr. president, it's interesting, i have some of the same concerns, maybe with different outcomes, from the senator from california. but i agree, we haven't -- we have not done our work. over the course of the last -- little over a wean year, year,n traveling i thintraveling the sf tennessee, making people waimplet aim sure people on the other side have been doing the same thing. after town hall meetings all acrossing our state, in every form you can imagine -- i'm sure the presiding officer has done the same -- people are very aware in my state, as they are
across the country, with the fact that we are on an u unsustainable course. "the wall street journal" this morning wrote an editorial about no matter what we do regarding the action proposals before us today, it's likely that our country is going to be downgraded. so here we are faced with a situation where the types of legislation that we're looking at in both chambers, i might add -- in both chambers -- probably will take us to a place where our countries debt is grown graded. i want to first applaud both leaders, senator reid for bringing forth a proposal today -- over the last few days; representative boehner, the leader of the house, for doing the same on the house side. what i want to say about that is while to me they don't meet the goals or don't meet the tests that our country needs to have met at this time, at least we're
finally talking about proposals that will reduce spending in this country and put us back on a sustainable path. so i appreciate the leadership of both bodies finally, after many, many months, we're finally on the right topic. what i have said all along is that as we approach the debt ceiling, we need to dramatically change the character of spending in this country. my concern is that our work is not quite done. the fact is that there's no question, the deadline that's coming up, that everybody agrees sat least the minimum is on august 2 -- i don't think there's any do dispute that we e until august 2 to deal with this issue. i don't think we've come up with the solution that we need to come up with to dramatically change the character of spending in this country. and so what i would say is, look, our work is not quite done. the house has a bill that basically reduces spending over the next decade, $1 trillion.
candidly, mr. president, i think we all know that that's not a solution that is going to prevent a downgrade in this country. it does have the goal of kicking this to a select committee of some kind that's going to try to incorporatincorporate another $8 trillion in cuts. i think that's a step comeback to where i think we were a weekend ago where at least on the coted side -- even on the cut side, even the president had agreed to at least $3 trillion in cuts. that's our understanding. so what we have coming out of the hoys house right sununu bill that doesn't cut as much as the president had agreed to last weekend. and so we have on this side a bill that cuts about $1 trillion after it's been scoardz. and again i applaud the leader of the senate for putting forth a bill that at least begins moving us in the right direction. but again it's $2 trillion short
of where the president had been with leaders a week ago -- or at least that's our understanding, and i'm pretty sure that that understanding is correct. we also know that the general mantra that's been adopted by wall street and by people who are looking at our country around the world is that we need to do something that is at least a $4 trillion solution. so i would say to the senator from california, who just spoarks i couldn't agree more. we have not addressed this situation as we we should. the vast majority of this body does not want to see our country default on its obligations. i don't know of anybody want this to do that. i've wanted to see dramatic changes in the character of spending for our country and many people have sought that. our work is not yet done. so what i would say is let's have a short-term extension.
there is no question that we do not want the sovereign debt of this country to be downgraded because we default. nobody wants to see that happen. we're at least finally on the right topic here. we're talking about spend reductions. we certainly haven't done the work necessary to achieve the goal that we need to achieve in this body. but i couldn't agree more. let's have a short-term extension. let's extend it another week or two weeks or three weeks. a lot of people say, well, you know, the fact is that that will royal the markets. what i would say is i don't think it'll royal the markets. i think they're waiting for us waiting until an hour before the deadline to work out a solution. i think that's become customary, if you will, in the united states senate and the house of representatives. what i would say is, if we don't do the work now, we have an historic opportunity right now
-- right now the whole world, the whole country, all of our citizens are frustrated, the house and senate are all focused on one thing and that is what kind of package can we put forth to actually cause our country to be more solvent at this time? we're finally on the right topic and yet we haven't even in these aspirational bills that are laid out, we know that with all the actuarial assumptions that exist, with medicare and social security and medicaid that if we don't touch trying to make them solvent for the longer haul, that we really haven't even done our work. and the bills that are before us don't even have as an aexpirational goal -- for instance, the house bill that's coming over with the select committee that i know senator reid and senator mcconnell have been involved in -- and i thank them for their work -- but it doesn't even lay out that one of the things that we're looking at there is ensuring that social security is actuarially sound and i think the future of these
young pages who potentially down the road -- not potentially, hopefully will benefit from social security, i think they'd like to know that during this historic time we're actually looking at the real issues. so, what i'm afraid of, mr. president, is we are missing the opportunity for this to be the seminal moment that we all thought it was going to be because we don't yet have a product that solves the problem. the product that we're looking at in both bodies -- and i thin- and i thank the leaders for bringing them forth -- that product does not meet the test. it doesn't dramatically change the character of spending in washington. it doesn't even stave off a downgrade in u.s. sovereign debt. and so we're on the brink of actually doing something great for our country, and because we now have our country's focus -- and everybody in these bodies
are focused on this problem -- let's have a short-term extension. i agree. let's don't default. let's move back a week or two weeks or three weeks. but let's don't miss this historic opportunity to do something great for our country, which is exactly what we're doing now. it's hard for me to believe, seriously that what we have before success a $1 trillion down payment. it is also hard for me to believe candidly that we're going to set up a select committee that's going to report back in four or five months when all of us know what the issues are. we understand the math. i know we get ridiculed a lot for the way we act in this body, but i think most of us, candidly, pretty well understand what the solutions are. and we all know that nobody really gets to work on anything around here until there's an eminent deadline. so even with this committee
that's being potentially set up by mutual discussion down the road -- i know there's a lot of negotiations -- to me, they should report back. i agree with the senator from california. let's report back at the end of this fiscal year, september 30. there's no reason to wait. and let's see if that type of bill were to pass, where you have a two-stage process, let's go ahead and get the work out of the way. but toipght back to the bigger -- but i want to go back to the bigger picture for just a moment and will conclude momentarily. we have an opportunity right now -- we've never been focused in the way that we are right now in the four and a half years that i've been here on something that is important as this, as it relates to us getting our house in order. we have never been this focused. and what i'm afraid of, in the name of political efficacy,
people saying, hey, look, let's take what we can get and get on out of here so would don't mess up our potential, on both sides of the aisle, for the 2012 elections. take what you've got on both sides. i mean, basically let's think about it. for the other side of the aisle to weigh all the proposals that are before us -- the way all the proposals are laid out, there's no way to make the entitlements sustainable. so they can run in 2012 on the entitlement issue. and with all the proposals that are laid out right now, we really don't deal with spending appropriately. and so, you know, our country probably is going to have its debt downgraded. so republicans can run on fact that we haven't reduced spending enough. and so if you really look at it, this really works well for everybody except the citizens of our country. again, we're finally on the right topic, which is a rarity here. we're finally focused on the
problem. we have two bills that don't go far enough, and again i applaud both the democratic leader and the republican leader for putting forth proposals. we all know it doesn't do what it needs to do. either proposal. we know the aspirational goals of each proposal don't take us far enough. so what i would say to all -- i agree -- let's don't default. let's don't bump up against august the 3rd. let's pass a short-term time extension, let's take us through the end of august or the first two weeks in september, or least take a week. but let's finish our work in this body. let's don't miss this seminal opportunity where everybody in this country and everybody in this world is looking at how undisciplined we've been and the opportunity that we have before us to actually be disciplined
and send a signal to the world that our future is not the future that greece is seeing today. our future is the continuation of american exceptionalism, all around this world, and we are squandering that opportunity right now in this body at a time when we're finally focused on the right top iefnlgt mrmrmrmr >> the house is still in recess. the vote was postponed this evening. an update in "politico" says that for ours, speaker boehner has been in intense one-on-one meeting with republicans in an effort to win today's fight and republicans were considering sending their bill back to the rules committee for minor tweaks to win more votes. the "washington post" writing that several republicans from south carolina were brought into mr. bainer's suite on the second floor of the capital,
but leaders made no headway with them. representative jeff duncan and nick mull veiny left the office and went into the nearby chapel saying they were praying over the matter and for their leadership. when the house comes back in, we'll have it live here on respond. now here is representative michelle bachmann who is running for president as she talked at the national press club today as she talked about the ongoing negotiations to raise the debt ceiling and cut spending. >> there is something going on in washington, d.c. the american people have been paying attention. it's the national debate that is before all of us on whether or not this nation will once again raise the debt limit and more importantly, how we will deal with the economic difficulties that are impacting literally millions of our federal americans across the nation. in january of this year, second tim geithner sent a letter to members of congress informing us that the debt limit would be
reached sometime between march 31 and may 16 of this year. we have now known for seven months that we were approaching the debt limit, and yet the administration has failed to put forward a plan to either reduce spending or to turn our economy around. instead, president obama has asked for a $2.4 trillion blank check to get himself through the election in 2012. in the wake of tarp which let no one forget the president approved and embraced during the presidential debates in 2008 and as well as the president's approval of the bailouts of banks and also an unlimited credit card for freddy and fanny and unprecedented government stimulus bill, the federal deficit and the federal debt both are in shambles, at least that's the way the american people see it. and still the president has no
plan. it's unthinkable, but he still has no plan. the american people want someone who will stand up for them. they want someone who will say stop. they're looking for someone who will say no. i will be that person who will say no more. a little over three decades ago, there was a visionary politician who faced the economic challenges of his time. he observed that this is created by the wasteful spending, again, that occurred here in washington, d.c. and irresponsible economic policies. it was like today a time when many americans doubted the goodness and the economic greatness of our country. many argued for continuation of the same policies and there are these, grow government. does it sound familiar? spend our way to prosperity. does it sound familiar? but this man held firm. he didn't care what the
editorial boards wrote about him all across the nation. he did what he thought was right. he criticized the liberals' policies of hiring taxes and higher levels of spending. he called for resolve and he called for firmness with dealing with turning our nation around economically. he refused to condemn millions of americans to a worse life than what their parents came to know and provided for them. fortunately, this great man, governor reagan, became president reagan and how different this world would have been and our different america would have been if he had failed to win the election in 1980 and, again, in 1984. does anyone possibly believe that a liberal president would have turned the economy around in 1910 and reduced runaway inflation or brought down the unheard of interest rates that forced people to almost always
buy a home by contract for deed rather than pay the exorbitant interest rates of that time, or unemployment. we, in fact, were introduced to a new term. it was called the misery index. while many liberals tried to derail his plans to reduce taxes as well as the size of government, ronald reagan was steadfast. and ronald reagan was right. thanks to his leadership, the economy did turn around in the 1980's and we did enjoy economic growth and prosperity that has been unparalleled in american history. and i remember that time vividly. i was in college at that time and i had voted for jimmy carter. that may shock some of you here, but i was in college, too, and i voted for jimmy carter. but when i saw the direction that president carter took our country and how his big spending liberal majority grew government and weakened our standing in the world and how
they decreased our liberties, well, i became a republican and i haven't looked back since. as a wife, as a mother, as a federal tax litigation attorney who worked her way through school, as a former state senator who led a movement to achieve the repeal of a harmful piece of education policy in my home state of minnesota and now as a member of the united states congress, the most wonderful deliberative body in the world who has worked tirelessly fighting against the expansion of very unpopular government programs like obamacare and unprecedented levels of skyrocketing spending, i have come to agree with ronald reagan that government doesn't solve problems. it subsidizes problems. and that government's first duty is to protect the people, not to run their lives. today the challenges i think are at least as severe as they
were when ronald reagan stood tall in this nation and today the differences between republicans and president obama, whether it's on economics, are every bit as stark as they were some 30 years ago. as we debate raising the debt ceiling, the players seem to have lost all sense of proportion and all sense of magnitude of the problems that beset us. in the brief time that president obama has held public office, we have witnessed the erosion of welfare reform. we have witnessed the unprecedented expansion of government budgets like we have never seen before in our history. we have seen salaries for government employees skyrocket and we have seen payrolls skyrocket as well. the addition of obamacare and the green regulations through that agency across the street known as the e.p.a., we
witnessed an unlimited credit card bailout. as a matter of fact, it was a christmas eve gift that the treasury secretary gave to fanny and freddy and that was the epicenter of the economic meltdown. sadly, we haven't reformed the bankrupt tax and spend policies that were decried by ronald reagan some decades ago, but we have, it is now evident, merely replaced them with a new and more insidious scheme and it's called borrow and spend. but be forewarned, be forewarned, if we allow president obama to pass the proposed increase in the national debt, we will have and catch your breath, almost doubled our national debt from the 2006 level when i was elected to congress and when i held up my right arm and swore to uphold and protect and defend the constitution of the
united states, that level of national debt in 2006 was $8.67 trillion. today, if the bill is passed, we will see our debt come to nearly depress 17 trillion. those numbers are beyond staggering, considering it took us 219 years to get to the first $8.6 trillion, $6 trillion, $7 trillion in debt and only five years to almost double that amount. i voted against increasing the debt limit every time while i have been a member of congress. and the congressional budget office projects that the debt will soon be $25 trillion in something less than 10 years from now. now the stakes are even more serious for our country, but particularly for the people that we serve. the day is fast approaching when our entire budget will be
consumed by servicing not only the national debt, but by medicare, medicaid, and social security. anyone who doubts the seriousness of our current fiscal situation simply isn't paying attention. as we know all too well from our history, if your ship is on course to hit anizeberg, you have to make -- an iceberg, you have to make a course correction in hopes of surviving. that's where we are today. the current negotiations over the debt ceiling illustrate exactly what is wrong in washington, d.c. today, because president obama said, unless we raise the debt ceiling, there would be catastrophic results for our economy. as "national review" columnist and arrest for andrew mccarthy correctly notes, "the problem is not the debt ceiling. but rather the problem is our debt." the lack of a clear plan from our president to substantially
reduce our debt is what is scaring the markets and scaring the credit raters. you can't fool the markets. that's an axiom of life. that's reality. the markets know when politicians are serious about spending cuts, and the markets know when politicians are not. while no one doubts our economic situation as dire, it's also clear to me that the administration is attempting to get its way by using scare tactics. we saw that even earlier this week in the president's remarks to the nation. but let's go back to that letter dated january 6, 2011 when secretary geithner wrote to senate majority leader harry reid and all of the members of congress were cced on that letter that the deadline for default would occur sometime between march 31 and may 16 of this year, 2011. since then, the deadline for
default given to us by secretary geithner has moved several times. according to the calendar, it's now july and now there have been indications that the august 2 deadline might not be accurate either. it seems that every time we get close to a deadline, the administration finds a reason or a way to move the date. first, the deadline was in the spring. then it was moved to august 2. and now, several new sources have reported that the deadline might not be until august 10 or perhaps even in september. for the sake of the people we serve and for the sake of u.s. economic reputation around the world, let it be clearly stated -- it is a nonnegotiable that we will maintain the full faith and credit of the united states of america. i call on president obama today, in fact, to agree to pay
the interest on the debt. that is an amount that we can pay from our current revenues. then president obama needs to exercise the leadership that he has failed to exercise thus far and follow the example of speaker john boehner, who has actually presented a real plan before the congress, to prioritize our spending. we must also take care of our united states military, the brave men and women who are currently serving us in not only two, and now three theaters of war, but as well here in our country and in other places around the world. [applause] that is why recently several weeks ago i introduced what is known as the promises act together with my fellow colleagues, steve king of iowa and lewis gomert of texas.
that bill guarantees that we not only pay the interest on the debt, but we stop making our military men and women and their salaries and their families the pawns and political tools of this debate. they must not suffer while washington dithers. the president should support this legs. he should -- legislation. he should take the option of default off the table. this must have been done. instead once again on monday evening in his speech, the president has opted to use scare tactics against not only senior citizens, but also against veterans under the threat of default to attempt to get his way on this issue. there are several congressional plans. i'm sure you are continuing to cover all of them as they emerge from capitol hill dealing with the current crisis. the problem is all of them, all of them begin with a flawed assumption that we must raise
the debt limit. that's the flaw. the president said that the debt ceiling that people outside of washington have probably never heard of. that's shocking. i have been traveling around the country and i can assure the president that the people outside of washington, d.c. have not only heard of the term, the debt ceiling, before, they understand perfectly what raising the debt limit will mean for them and for the next generation of americans, their children and their grandchildren. the american people have made it abunt dantley clear, they -- abundantly clear, they don't want us to raise the debt limit, a short term or a long term raise. the president doesn't seem to understand the magnitude of our national debt. in his speech on monday night, he actually compared the national debt to a little credit card debt. well, $14.3 trillion, which is
where we sit today in debt, is not a little credit card debt. adding $2.7 trillion to get the president through the next election for a grand total of $17 trillion in debt is not, and i repeat, a little credit card debt. what is most striking is that the president has failed to exercise his duty to provide leadership and present his own plan. instead the president insists congress give him a blank check for another $2.7 trillion so he can continue the reckless spending that i came to washington, d.c. to stop. instead he has passed the baton of leadership to congress and pushed for higher taxes which he now calls revenues and increased spending with nonbinding elouis ri, --
elusory, never going to happen spending cuts that are years don't the road. his so-called approach isn't binding either. it's a language that we all understand. it's for the same approach that liberals have had for years -- higher taxes and higher spending, nothing new here. the president called raising the debt limit the routine thing that's done in washington, d.c. i'm here to say to all of you today, that's the problem. it's become the routine thing that is done here in washington, d.c. and the american people have said enough. where is their champion who will finally put down his or her foot and say no. but that is the problem. we have to stop making raising the debate limit routine. the president's $2.7 trillion debt limit increase is anything
but routine. his increase will be the largest debt increase in the history of the nation and here is the kicker. we can give the president $2.7 trillion in increase. it will only last one year. only one time have we raised the limit more than a trillion dollars. that increase was for $1.9 trillion. guess what. that also occurred under president barack obama's watch. the president also invoked ronald reagan on monday night in an attempt to justify his tax increases. in 1982, president reagan agreed to one dollar in tax increases for every $3 he would receive in spending cuts accepted by a democrat congress. he later acknowledged that what he actually received was the inverse. it was $3 of new taxes for every dollar of spending cuts. not a deal that the 40th
president of the united states would wish to repeat. i'm not fooled by president obama's math and i am here to tell you people all across the heartland of this country aren't fooled by president obama's math either. in 1990, the democrats convinced president bush to violate his no new taxes pledge in exchange for again elusory spending cuts. once again, the spending cuts were small, and the spending cuts were fleeting. how many times do we have to see this movie in washington, d.c. before we know how it will end? that's why i refuse to be a party to deceiving the american people yet again. i won't do it. i will vote against any proposal that includes tax increases or raises the debt ceiling. in the senate, harry reid has devised and the president has supported a plan to cut $2.7
trillion. would also raise the debt limit by $2.7 trillion. this sounds significant, but more than 40% of the cuts are completely counterfeit. $1 trillion of harry reid's cuts come from drawing down in afghanistan and in iraq. while we would all like to end these conflicts as soon as we possibly can and with success, harry reid's savings assumes the costs. war are indefinite when we already started to draw down in both of these regions. it's almost like saying that we will save trillions of dollars by promising not to invade canada. it's never going to happen. i can't support any plan that begins with the assumption that we have to raise the debt limit and yet doesn't offer a fundamental restructuring of government spending habits. i won't do it. while i embrace the principals of cut, cap, and balance, the
bill simply did not go far enough to fundamentally restructure the way that this city spends the american people's money. it allowed for an increase in the debt limit, something i simply won't do. i also believe that we must repeal and defund obamacare as part of any solution to our current debt crisis. why? because obamacare is the largest spending and entitlement program ever passed in our nation's history and is wildly unpopular with people all across the country. just ask. hop on my bus. you'll see what the american people are saying. the president promised the average american household would save $2,500 per year in health insurance premiums. he also said the federal government would save money as well. neither promise has come true. that means at a time when we can least afford it, president obama added to our spending problem by the trillions and without its repeal, it will be
almost impossible to have real economic reform. with trillion 1/2 deficits, 9% unemployment, we need pro growth policies. that's what i'm about, putting the american people back to work and providing jobs for them in the private sector, not increasing spending, not increasing debt. again, the answer from the president is no. he proposes to raise taxes on job creators and that's a prescription for a no-growth policy. another of washington's answers is to create a new commission on spending. what an idea. we have had 17 rodney dangerfield commissions on spending over the last 30 years. why not number 18. we need leaders who are willing to stand by the courage of their convictions. we need leaders who will stand up and say it's time to stop. we need real leaders who are willing to say no because when
leaders are willing to say no, that means they're willing to say yes to the american people. that means they're willing to say yes to growth. that means they're willing to say yes to an economy that will, in fact, rebound and faster than anyone thought possible. and that means we'll be saying yes to job creation and to the next generation. this is our goal and this is our plan and this is something we can do if we say no. we faced a much smaller version of today's fiscal crisis in 1982 and in 1990. in both cases, we were given budget deals that promised real permanent spending cuts. instead we received temporary spending cuts. they gave away to new spending. now we're supposed to trust the president who has given us $3.35 trillion in national debt in 2 1/2 years. five months ago, this president
gave us a budget proposal that would have actually increased the deficit and now we're to trust him to hold the line on new spending? the american people are more than a little doubtful. so it's time for washington to come clean and end the illusion of fiscal discipline. so let me be clear. i won't raise taxes. i will reduce spending and i won't vote to raise the debt ceiling and i have the titanium spine to see it through. several times in the last four years, washington came to a decision point. each time they chose the easy path, but that's the path to financial ruin. over the more difficult path that leads to prosperity. every time they made that decision, it wasn't for the better. now the time is to answer to the american people. now is the time to make the choice for prosperity. i see that the time is over, is that correct? >> you can take a few more
minutes. >> can i take a few more minutes? i don't want to impede on the question and answer time. i will finish my speech in that case. when politicians can't make the difficult decisions which i believe they must, i believe that that action, in fact, disrespects the people of this country. why? because it ignores them. it ignores the pleas that i hear all over iowa, new hampshire, south carolina, florida, texas. when i'm out there people say michele, stand tall, don't cave, fight for us. energy the other members of congress not to raise the debt ceiling. they are pleading with us to listen to them. the question is will we, will we, will the politicians in washington final listen to the american people because they're willing to exercise the courage that politicians aren't. raising the debt ceiling as the president pointed out on monday
has become the established way of doing things in this town. in his words, it's routine. that must change because we have to restore true hope to the country. if we don't, we'll continue to rack up debt that at some point we'll be unable to repay. every day the president is ceding away our choices for the future. every day the president is cediny away true hope and true change and even more concern is the effect that this spending has on job creation. i have seen it all across america. and it's absolutely heartbreaking to see it. to go to a factory where a year or so ago there were 200 employees and today it is 100 or less. it's an employee-owned company where the employees have to let their fellow employees go. the more government spends, the more government taxes. the more it taxes, the less
money that job creators have to create jobs. and the larger that the public sector grows, the more the private sector shrinks. our goal should not be to have every american work for the government. our goal should be to foster private sector growth. i'm bringing the voice of the people they love and that i learn from when i was growing up in iowa, to minnesota, to the halls of congress. i brought it there successfully. and now my goal is to take that very same voice to the white house where that voice hasn't been heard for a very long time. the people are looking for someone who will champion their values, who will champion their goals, who will speak for them when they feel like no one is, who will listen to them and speak their concerns. that's what they want to know. will we have a president who understands them? will we have a president who has walked in their shoes? will we have a president who cares about them, who loves
them, and who wants to see the nation turn around? and once again reengage in robust growth, the kind of growth that we saw when ronald reagan put in place the pro growth policies. let me conclude with this. i recall back when i was growing up in waterloo, iowa, we lived on lafayette street. my grandmother lived on lafayette street and i was in her kitchen. she was having a conversation with my father. my father was a big democrat. as our family, they were all democrats. the only republican i knew was my grandmother. and they had, you might say, a conversation in the kitchen about the great society. i was a small little girl, and during the course of that conversation, i will never forget my grandmother saying to my father, "but, david, it won't be you that pays for the great society. it will be davey and michele. my older brother david and
myself." my grandmother's prophetic admonition was exactly right. we are now paying for those programs. now we're looking to the next generation and the one that isn't even born. and that's the moral question of our time. what will we leave to that generation? will we leave them better off, or will we leave them with a stack of invoices? that's our question. i know what the american people have chosen. people all across the country have told me, they're forward-looking people. they love this country. even more, they love their children. they have chosen that we go on. that's their choice. they want to go on. they want to know if the politicians will go with them. they will, in fact, choose a future and a hope. i'm listening to them and i'm bringing their voice to you here today. i am choosing a future and a hope. thank you for allowing me to be
here. it's been a privilege. [applause] >> for what it's worth, some of the predecessors who have been here at the electricity stern, have had presidents stand up and sort of give them body language. i would not be about but looking at the e-mail traffic we have had and the number of cards, people are curious to have a dialogue with you. i do not think we could have as out ofd we could be o time such as this. give us an idea of where we stand with speaker john boehner's plan. if you see that happening. secondly, predict or give us your sense of how you see this
being resolved, if it is. >> i want to state unequivocally, for the world as well as the markets and the american people, i have no doubt we will not lose the full faith and credit of the united states. i have no doubt there will be a final result. i wish this could have happened previously as it should have. i got the letter from tim geithner. where the treasury secretary stated unequivocally, we will see a need to raise the debt ceiling by march or by may 16. the president was on notice and this was coming. despite that, the president introduced a bill in february that increased our debt an additional $1.50 trillion. this was irresponsible on the president's part and even today
as we're here gathered for this luncheon, we do not have a plan from the president. john boehner has put forward a plan to cut capt. balance plan. i embrace those principles. not include the defunding or the appeal -- repeal of obama care. i could not go down that road. i could not give john boehner that vote. you are aware that bill did pass. harry reid was not about to give that bill hearing. the president said he did not approve. john boehner has an alternative. i will not be casting my vote for that bill and we will be casting our vote later this afternoon. i cannot. i am committed to not raising the debt ceiling. my colleagues may give the speaker that vote today. despite john boehner's best effort, absolute faithful
efforts to put a plan on the table, the problem goes back again to the president's failure of leadership. he has kicked the can to the vice president, he has kicked the can to the congress and failed to lead on this issue of grappling with spending and the debt and the economy. now it is the president's hour. john boehner has produced not one but two plans. will the president produce a plan or will he agree to john boehner's? i do not think -- believe that we will lose the full faith and credit of the united states but it is time for the president to get engaged. if the clock is starting 11:59 p.m., it is late to get involved but he needs to get engaged. >> how do you see it being resolved? you said you liked for the president to be involved, but where -- how do we get to the point where we do not get that failure? >> i extended an invitation to
the president to join me on my bus tour. the invitation is open. the president would see clearly there is no stomach for his attitude and people are rightly afraid. the president was irresponsible to frighten our senior citizens and veterans by saying they will not receive their checks. the more prudent thing to do would be for the president to have gone engaged last january when the treasury secretary and the president falwell know that we were headed toward this of this. the president, they will need to get together with speaker better and -- john boehner and harry reid and make that decision. i believe result will come and i wish they would take up the promises act and make sure that we pay off the interest on the debt. make no mistake.
what will happen is there will be no reform. there will be no reform of spending. if there is anything we have to have in washington, it is a reform of spending. if this bill goes through today, that is a cut of approximately $22 billion in spending. we know the numbers. that one estimate says to put five days of spending, let's get serious. have going to have, if we european levels of spending that would require european levels of borrowing which would mandate european levels of taxation and will lead to european levels of stagnation in the economy and elevated unemployment levels. that is not the america i want to live in and that is not the america that most people i speak with want to live in. >> should speaker john boehner be ousted if the debt limit is
raised? >> i am running for president of the united states. i'm not running for speaker of the house. >> what is an appropriate level of debt for the federal government? none or 50% of gdp? what factors would you consider? less, wes, a lot cannot handle the current level of debt we have. we know that. we need to cut back. while there may be times when we need to increase the debt in emergencies, that is not the situation we're in right now. this is a function of overspending. it is a function of choosing failed promises -- policies. no one would defend the $1 trillion stimulus. it was a failure. if we borrow $1 trillion that we do not have and spend it, we would not see unemployment rise above 8%. it is 9.2%.
it has failed to come down. the president promised us that every possible -- passed a, care that each household would see a 25 hundred dollar reduction in their health insurance premiums. we have seen dramatic spikes in health-insurance premiums. we cannot believe these policies. they are failure. that is why we have to attract pro-growth policies and as nominee, i will make it my business to work tirelessly to elect an additional 13 senators that also have titanium spines that will come with me to washington to make sure that we get our fiscal house in order. >> you alluded to this. if congress does not get a debt or deficit solution by august 2, what do you think happens the day? kenya sympathize with americans who are dependent on the payments who are put at risk by failure to do something by them? >> i do sympathize with
americans. i spend most of my time speaking with americans across this country. i do sympathize with them. we heard yesterday from tim geithner what he -- he made a statement that was over 300 merit -- 300 million americans, the government is sending out 80 million checks a month. the government is paying, it seems, for almost everything in this country. that is the problem. we have got to have a complete review of what government is doing and what government should not be doing. that is the key. we have to have a fundamental restructuring of how we spend money. and unfortunately with the plan that is being offered this afternoon, we're not making that restructuring. i give john boehner credit. at least the speaker is putting forward a second plan. the president has failed to put forth one. the budget office said they could not score the speech
because the president has not put forth a plan. how was that leadership? >> you were critical of the process surrounding the health care legislation saying it did not get the bill until late. have the american people had an adequate opportunity to weigh in on these debts solutions that are before congress? they have had an opportunity to weigh in. that is why i mentioned it was almost incalculable when i heard the president said on monday evening, i was in iowa and i heard the president say most americans outside washington have not heard about the debt limit and the debt ceiling and raising the debt limit. everyone knows about it and they have known about it for a long time. it is the president who is out of touch. people have been trying to weigh in. they have been doing everything they can to get the attention of
politicians. there are people here, my colleagues who are listening, trying to pay attention. working tirelessly on the floor, pleading with leadership in the house and senate. let's listen to the american people. that is what cap cal -- cut, cap, and balance was about. can you please balance your budget? i will tell you this week i had a woman come up to me and we were in dubuque, iowa and she said i do not get these people. i have to balance my budget. i could not make it one month to buy did not balance my budget. why don't they figure it out? i spent an entire day in a factory. over 90 degrees inside the factory. there was pre fabrication -- it was a steel prefab vacation factory. i still by the time clock.
a man who had worked all day and had sweat dripping off his body. deere was stopped him and he punched out and had his lunch bucket and he put out his hand and said i want to ask you one thing. if you are president, will you promise me you will give the country back to the people? i said i will. he asked me that not once but three times and said the reason i am asking you is because i am not worried about myself. i am said. it is my grandson i am worried about. i said, what is his name? >> his name as isaac. if there is one thing all of you in this room should know, the bottom line of what i hear across the country is this. the american people are scared to death that their children will have a lower standard of living than they had. they fear they may have lived to the pinnacle of america's greatness and we maybe on
decline. they do not want to go that way. they want progress. they want better. they have seen every generation has done better than the generation before and they want that for their kids. that is what we have to remember. when we increase the debt ceiling, when we increase the tax burden on our families and businesses, we will never get there. politicians would do well to listen to the people. some are in washington, d.c.. i wish the president would. >> that gets to the question of who or the people and who are you listening to and who is funding campaigns? people have been distanced from their government because of the huge amount of money it costs to run for office and that will be a challenge as you mature campaign. what kind of a look to you have regarding campaign finance reform or do you think these campaigns are fine?
>> i am open to donations and i will be happy to give you my website. we have been gratified by the level of support we have been getting. when i ran for congress, i raised more money than any member of congress in the history of congress and i am pleased to let you know the average donation was $45. the reason is people filled and trusted in me and my voice. they felt i was bringing their voice to the halls of congress where it had not been heard for a long time. we're saying that same response across the country. people believe i will take their voice into the white house. that is what they want to see. for campaign finance reform, i believe it is important for the american people to be able to exercise their first amendment right and be able to speak out. they are trying to speak. it goes back to my prior answer. it is whether or not the people
that represent them are listening. i want to be fair. there are excellent members of congress here who are listening to their constituents. i only wish the president would as well. >> we have a potpourri of questions on the final five or seven minutes to go. the question that has been in the news, this comes from a local reporter. riza reporting has revealed the clinic you co-owned with your husband engages in the kind of therapy that is meant to get people over their homosexuality. can you believe this therapy can change people into being straight? do you have federal funding? >> i will celebrate our 33rd what -- anniversary this september. i am running for the presidency of the united states. my husband is not running for the presidency. neither are my children, neither is our business, neither is our
foster children and i am more than happy to stand for questions on running for presidency of the united states. >> to be clear, you do not believe your personal finances are something that should be questioned by the american people? >> i am running for the presidency of the united states and i have no doubt that every jot and tittle of my life will be looked at and inspected prior to november 2012. >> codey the washington post said you cleared -- there is a prize at the end. the washington post notes that you called for dismantling of fannie mae and freddie mac. the question and i have a lot of questions asking, is it fair for you to call for dismantling of federal programs that you yourself have been a beneficiary of? in terms of guaranteeing home
mortgages, do you think the federal government has a role in that even if you do not like the way fannie and freddie have been doing business? >> this is the problem. unlike all of you who i am sure paid cash for your homes, there are people out there who have to go to a bank and get a mortgage. this is the problem. it is almost impossible to buy a home in this country today without the federal government being involved. whether it is with the fha, whether it is with fanny, or with friday, it is almost impossible to buy a home. one thing we need to remember is fannie and freddie were the epicenter of the financial meltdown. i sat on a financial services committee and i watched as this occurred. what is important is we do dismantle a number of these federal programs. everyone agrees they are out of control. do not forget, not only is the federal government virtually
taking over this entire industry, take a look at the student loan industry. 25 years ago or more, back when -- maybe it in your time when you were in college. 25 years ago or so. almost all student loans were private. today, 100% of student loans are government. this is not a good scenario. the federal government continues to insert itself into filling a proprietary function that the private sector should fulfil. this is the problem. this is an intervention by the government and is altering the marketplace. we need to get the federal government out of these programs and out of these loans. >> you talk a lot about how your faith is important in your life and for your family. one aspect of being a politician do you find most difficult to reconcile with your faith? >> the best. that tax collectors, maybe,
something like that. i do not find it difficult to recognize -- reconcile with my faith. i'm a christian and proud of my faith and i am extremely grateful to god. as president, i will pray every day and asked the lord to give me guidance as president and even more so, i want you to know that i will be praying for everyone of you every day. >> we are grateful for that. we have a number of questions about the media. people wonder if you feel like the media has been fair to your campaign and deal -- and you? >> when we made the decision, we considered what would be involved and we knew this would be a momentous journey and it would take every bit of our stamina and everything we had. we knew that it would be tough. also, i have rare advantage. that is the fact that when i grow up, i had -- group, i had
four brothers and three sisters. there is no better preparation for politics than that. one thing the boys learned is do not pick on your sister, it is not going to work. [laughter] >> you told me that at the end. in terms of what -- when you are looking to read the news, what kinds of sources do you look at? do you look at a variety from the left and the right? >> i do. usually i prefer to go to the sources from the left first rather than from the right but i have a routine. i have an ipad and thank god for the ipad. i have a smartphone that i use. i am finding increasingly that more of my news is coming to me digitally. that is how i tried to communicate with people as well. i receive my news the way. we also continue to receive
newspapers and print magazines and i may be greater. for me, i have read books on my ipad. i cannot get away from actually holding the printed page. i have a love affair with the printed page. i prefer to read directly from a real newspaper that i hold in my hands and from a magazine because i have a habit. when i read, i am writing while i am reading and putting notes in the margin. my husband has seen me do that forever. that is my habit. i am in the process of transferring over and doing it digitally. >> what are your favorite liberal publications? >> as far as television, i will go to msnbc to see what msnbc has to say. i do not know if they consider themselves liberal. they may not. also "the huffington post."
also "the daily based." none of these may consider themselves liberal but i go there. almost out of we have a couple of housekeeping matters to take care of. i would like to remind you of some upcoming speakers, one of whom is in the political space. gov. jarret -- gary johnson. on august 30, we will have an interview with labor secretary hilda solis. and rudy giuliani, the former mayor of new york on september 6. before we get to the last question, i would like to present our guest with a gift. that is, we call it the mud but you can -- mug a you can drink coffee or tea out of it. >> it will be sweetie. >> looking back at history, can
you think of two presidents that you admire the most? >> yeah, republican would be abraham lincoln. my all-time favorite president is george washington. the reason is he was a reluctant president. he did not choose the job but people around him saw his character and saw the type of life he has lived and urged him to be president. abraham lincoln for obvious reasons. he had to stand tall when the country was virtually disintegrating. as far as a democratic president, i have tremendous admiration for harry truman. he was my father's favorite. i read david mccullough's wonderful biography. he is a tremendous man. when you think that he did not have a college degree and yet, he had to deal with the korean war and he had to deal with the dropping of the bomb. he has so many issues that came on his plate all the ones. he stood strong. he stood strong for israel.
went 11 minutes after israel declared her sovereignty, it was harry truman that had israel's back. that has made all the difference for stability in the middle east. it is abraham lincoln but the all-time faired is george washington. >> around of applause for our speaker today. [applause] >> thank you. >> thank you for coming today. i would like to thank the national press club staff including our library and broadcast center for organizing today's event. thank you, and we're adjourned.
>> there will be no vote tonight on house speaker john but -- john boehner's debt limit bill. a bill -- a vote earlier today was postponed. he spent the day in meetings tried to get the 216 votes needed. the bill is headed back to the rules committee to work on a
measure that would allow them to bring a new rule and that bill tomorrow. the rules committee is expected to meet in five minutes at 11:00 p.m. eastern time and we will bring it to live. some debate from earlier on the bill. extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, about a minute and a half after 3:00 p.m. on july 28, 2011. at this moment we begin the debate on one of the most crucial items that we have had or will have before us. since 1962 on 75 different occasions the united states congress has chosen to increase the debt ceiling to ensure that we paid our past obligations. it's been done 75 times without ever having any strings atatched whatsoever. -- attached whatsoever. last november there was a very
strong message sent by the american people to this institution. mr. speaker, could i ask that the house be in order? the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members, please remove their conversations from the floor. members in the back of the chamber, please teether -- either take seats or remove your conversations from the floor. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: thank you very much, mr. speaker. last november we all know that there was an overwhelming message that was september by the american people to washington, d.c. and that message was, number one, create jobs. get our economy back on track and in so doing rein in the dramatic increase in the size and scope and reach of government that we witnessed in the past several years. we all know in the last four years we've had an 82% increase in nondefense discretionary spending, an 82% increase.
so the message that was sent was, that has to come to an end. so speaker boehner, when asked by the president of the united states to move an increase in the debt ceiling, said that he was willing to do that. he recognized, as i believe an overwhelming majority of both democrats and republicans in this institution recognize, it is absolutely essential that we increase the debt ceiling. we've got to do everything that we can to ensure that social security checks get to those retirees. we have to make sure that the many other obligations that we have are in fact met. and on that one issue of social security we know that on july 12 the president of the united states in a speech said that if we don't see an increase in the debt ceiling by august 2 could he not guarantee that august 3
those social security checks would go to our retirees. so, mr. speaker, what happened was speaker boehner said, we want to make sure that those social security checks get out, we want to make sure that we increase the debt so our nation doesn't default and follow the pattern of greece, portugal, ireland and other countries in the world that have gone through tremendous economic devastation. but what the speaker said is that while we are going to, in increasing the debt ceiling, meet those obligations of the past, we are not going to do it the way it's been done the last 75 times. we are going to get to the root cause of why it is that we have to increase the debt ceiling. and that is the runaway spending that democratic and republican alike decries regularly.
so the speaker said that he would increase the debt ceiling but he wanted to ensure that we cut spending in an amount that was greater than the level of the debt ceiling increase. so he began discussions, recognizing that republicans, those who won this majority last november, only control the united states house of representatives. speaker boehner does not look at the world through rose-colored glasses. he knows that the republicans don't control the united states senate and he knows that he has to work with president obama. but he does know that the last statement that was made by the american people in november of last year was, we've got to have a dramatic change in the course that we have been on. so he began negotiating. he began discussions.